Sides digging in for new red-light camera debate

Sunday

Sep 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM

By LLOYD DUNKELBERGERH-T Capital Bureau

A move to repeal Florida's three-year-old red-light camera law next year faces formidable obstacles, including a well-financed red-light camera company lobbying corps paid up to a half-million dollars in the 2013 legislative session to protect the lucrative industry.

There will also be a strong pushback from the 77 cities and counties — many still trying to recover from the Great Recession and its aftermath — that received more than $62 million in fines from the cameras in the most recent budget year.

The state, which splits the $158 fines with local government, received nearly $53 million from the cameras.

Opponents will also have to overcome arguments from safety advocates who say the cameras save lives and make Florida's roadways safer. The law is named after Mark Wandall, a Manatee County man whose wife fought for years to pass the legislation after her husband was killed when a motorist ran a traffic light.

Casey Cook, a lobbyist for the Florida League of Cities, said safety, not revenue, will be the primary argument from local governments that want to keep the existing law.

“We are opposed to the repeal of the red-light camera law,” Cook said. “For us it's all about safety. It's a proven public safety tool that is stopping red-light running and stopping dangerous T-bone crashes. I think it's been misconstrued that cities are making a bunch of money off these things.”

But one of the leaders of the move to repeal the red-light camera law next year — state Senate Transportation Chairman Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg — believes otherwise.

Brandes, who is working with Rep. Frank Artiles, R-Miami, in the House, said he supports having a “robust” road safety program but calls the cameras a “backdoor tax” source for the local governments.

“Cities and counties are in this because they want the revenue — and it was never sold as a revenue tool,” Brandes said.

Brandes is waiting on a report from legislative analysts, who are looking at the revenue trends as well as the safety issues. He said he believes he will be able to demonstrate by the beginning of the annual session next spring that the cameras are being misused.

“It's all about money,” he said.

Local government revenue has more than tripled, growing along with the number of communities using the cameras since they were authorized under state law in 2010.

But Cook insists that for many cities, the camera programs are not a major revenue source, adding that the revenue would be expected to decline because motorists know the cameras are being used and are less likely to commit violations.

He also said use of the cameras should remain a local decision, with each city — or county — being able to decide whether to use the devices.

“Our cities are using these at dangerous intersections and it's all about safety for them,” Cook said. “The government closest to the people governs best. If a city commission wants to put in a red-light camera program because they think they have a red-light running problem in their city, they should be able to make that decision.”

Helping local governments make their case are the companies behind the cameras.

State financial disclosure reports tracking lobbying fees through the first half of this year show that American Traffic Solutions and Redflex Traffic Systems spent up to $340,000 hiring lobbyists to protect the law in the Legislature this year, and another $160,000 on lobbying the governor and executive branch agencies.

The amounts are a high-end estimate because lobbying fees are reported in ranges and not exact figures.

American Traffic, from Scottsdale, Ariz., hired nine lobbying firms, which had 54 lobbyists on their payrolls, during the 2013 session. The company paid up to $260,000 for legislative lobbyists and $110,000 for the executive agencies. The highest fees went to Southern Strategies, which was paid up to $70,000 for lobbying lawmakers and up to $30,000 for the executive branch.

Redflex, a Phoenix-based company that runs the red-light cameras in Jacksonville, hired two lobbying firms and spent up to $80,000 on influencing lawmakers and another $50,000 on the executive branch. The highest lobbying fees went to Blue Tusk Communications, which was paid up to $110,000 for legislative and executive branch lobbying, according to the state reports.

Bolstering its position, American Traffic also made $145,000 in campaign contributions to the Florida Republican and Democratic Party funds during the period leading up to the 2013 session and just after its conclusion.

The GOP received $125,000 from the red-light camera company, including $50,000 in contributions made on Jan. 8 and June 11, according to state elections records. The Democrats received $20,000 on Dec. 4.

The willingness to hire dozens of lobbyists and to make large campaign donations does not surprise Gary Biller, president of The National Motorists Association, a group that opposes the the cameras.

Biller said as lawmakers file bills to repeal the red-light cameras in the 2014 session, Florida has become a major battleground state for the industry, including American Traffic and Redflex.

“Both companies pull in about $100 million a year from their U.S. photo enforcement programs,” Biller said. “To aggressively promote that business, they employ large numbers of lobbyists at both the federal and state levels.”

Biller said the industry has “good reason to be so aggressive in Florida.” More than 40 cities in California — another major red-light camera state — have decided to oppose the devices, including Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose.

“While there is also opposition to the cameras in Florida, it hasn't yet been as successful as in California,” Biller said. “So it isn't surprising that ATS and Redflex are marshaling many of their resources to not only expand their business in the Sunshine State but also mount stiff resistance against efforts to repeal the use of red-light cameras.”

Despite opposition from the companies and local governments, this year Brandes won support for several changes in the law, including giving motorists more time to deal with the initial violations and prohibiting motorists from being charged with a right-turn violation if they had come to a complete stop.

But Brandes said there are still many problems with the law, including the use of arbitrary standards for the enforcement of right-hand turns as well issues with the timing of the yellow lights. He also said he is upset that some local government are charging a maximum administration fee for a new appeals process that was set up under the revised law this year.

As for the opposition from local governments as well as the big-money lobbying corps, Brandes said he is prepared to counter them with his arguments.